Pacificans for a Scenic Coast, Pacificans for Highway 1 Alternatives and the Center for Biological Diversity provided notice of their intent to file a citizen suit for violations of the U.S. Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Caltrans is named a defendant in both.

“It also had to go to the city of Pacifica because the city is legally a ‘necessary and indispensable party’ to any decision in that lawsuit,” said Peter Loeb, plaintiff representative. The San Mateo County Transportation Authority was named in that notice, as well.

Besides Caltrans, the notice to sue for violations of the Endangered Species Act went to U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, GGNRA and the Army Corps of Engineers.

“Caltrans had a notice published in the Federal Register that said that if there was going to be a federal suit of the Calera Parkway Project, that suit would have to be filed by May 8, 2015 or we would be forever barred from filing a federal lawsuit. This forced our hand,” Loeb said. “We had to look at whether there were grounds for a federal lawsuit. We determined that there were grounds. Then we realized that we are required to send a 60-day notice of intent to sue, so we had to send those notices out by March 8. If Caltrans had not had that notice published in the Federal Register, we may never have considered a federal suit. The Federal Register notice made us look at whether there was a reason that Caltrans would want to bar us from filing a federal suit. Our research showed that there are some very good reasons why they wouldn’t want us to do that — Caltrans has several violations of federal laws.”

The notice about alleged violations of the Clean Water Act states the highway widening construction will discharge dredged and or/fill material to five waterways, and will affect water quality, without a required permit from the Army Corp of Engineers. That’s an alleged violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the notice says.

The notice also alleges the project does not have a minimum setback required by the California Coastal Commission.

The notice contends Caltrans identified .87 acres of wetlands affected by the project, but the project has grown. In addition, seasonal wetlands perched on top of a man-made embankment Caltrans proposes to remove will also be affected, the notice states.

The end of the notice invites the parties named to initiate discussions with the plaintiff groups within 10 days.

The notice of intent to sue under violations of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act alleges Caltrans’ failure to hold required consultations and a failure to include the National Park Service and the Army Corps of Engineers in consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Alleging the project will likely adversely affect two endangered species — the California red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake — a consultation under section 7 of the ESA is required, the notice states. That consultation must also include the Secretary of the Interior, the notice reads.

The notice states the project grew since the original biological opinion was delivered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the mitigation measures identified are no longer feasible. There are changes to the retaining walls designed as mitigation measures and the elimination of permanent barriers preventing wildlife from entering biofiltration swales and changes to wildlife exclusion fencing, the notice states. In addition, the notice states Caltrans knew a mitigation measure in the biological opinion was not feasible but withheld that information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The notice states Caltrans did not implement “reasonable and prudent” measures that were required under the biological opinion. It further alleges Caltrans proposed compensation measures are not of “high quality breeding, foraging, sheltering, migration and dispersal habitat.”

The National Park Service, which owns property next to both sides of the project, should have consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service about the project; that is a violation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the notice contends. Likewise, the Army Corp of Engineers should have consulted on the effects of the Clean Water Act Permit. The notice alleges Caltrans violated the Endangered Species Act by excluding these agencies from providing the best scientific data.

Local resident Mark Stechbart spoke out against Loeb’s assessment of the notices posted by Caltrans in the Federal Register.

“Caltrans posts in the Federal Register every road project they do in California and everyone knows about it. It’s the law. It’s a ‘put up or shut up’ rule. Loeb is saying Caltrans is trying to conceal something. That’s not true. The opponents to Highway One are trying to see if they can torpedo the funding. They were hedging their bets on the loss of lawsuit number two. This was not a big surprise and it was part of their strategy,” Stechbart said.

Violent police encounters in California last year led to the deaths of 157 people and six officers, the state attorney general’s office said Thursday in a report that provides the first statewide tally on police use-of-force incidents.